President Trump’s budget proposal this week would shake the federal government to its core if enacted, culling back numerous programs and expediting a historic contraction of the federal workforce.

This would be the first time the government has executed cuts of this magnitude — and all at once — since the drawdown following World War II, economists and budget analysts said.

The spending budget Trump is set to release Thursday will offer the clearest snapshot of his vision for the size and role of government. Aides say that the president sees a new Washington emerging from the budget process, one that prioritizes the military and homeland security while slashing many other areas, including housing, foreign assistance, environmental programs, public broadcasting and research. Simply put, government would be smaller and less involved in regulating life in America, with private companies and states playing a much bigger role.

The cuts Trump plans to propose this week are also expected to lead to layoffs among federal workers, changes that would be felt sharply in the Washington area. According to an economic analysis by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, the reductions outlined so far by Trump’s advisers would reduce employment in the region by 1.8 percent and personal income by 3.5 percent, and lower home prices by 1.9 percent.

“These are not the kind of cuts that you can accommodate by tightening the belt one notch, by shaving a little bit off of a program, or by downsizing a few staff here or there,” said Robert Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “These are cuts that would require a wholesale triage of a vast array of federal activities.”

All I hear is that he plans to roll back Leviathan, and then focus on government doing the things it is told are its responsibility in the constitution, but I am sure that the usual members of the vote-buying credentialed elite class, seeing their own lucrative scheme come under attack, will be howling in anger that this is happening. of course, I suspect – as the article points out – that Trump’s biggest challenge to get this done will come from the biggest bunch of freeloaders out there – congress:

Still, budget experts said it was unclear what the precise impact on many agencies might be because the departments could choose to implement reductions in a variety of ways.

Administration officials have also stressed that discussions are ongoing between budget officials and agencies, and that the size of the budget cuts remains fluid. Moreover, the cuts cannot take effect unless they are authorized by Congress, which could prove difficult. Lawmakers routinely rebuffed budget requests from President Barack Obama, leading instead to protracted negotiations between both sides.

Already, Democrats have vowed to fight Trump’s proposals, and some Republicans have also expressed unease at the size of the reductions.

The White House declined to comment publicly, but administration officials have signaled for weeks that large cuts will be part of the budget.

That the democrats – which have never seen either a government entity that is large enough or pisses away too much of the tax payer’s money on crap that adds no value but buy democrat politicians votes – would react to this plan like vampires would to holy water, holy symbols, or sunlight, was expected. But the added bonus here is that it will expose the democrat-light nanny staters in the republican establishment, for what they are. These politicians on the republican side need to stop acting like they care about fiscal responsibility and small government when they are no better than the democrats, and we need to know who they are so we can vote them out as well.

I hope he wins this fight and forces congress to show its hand. And I hope every budget that follows this one repeats the cycle. The best thing to prevent the current tyranny of the nanny state is a small government with little power outside of the duties the constitution allows it. A lot of our problems will fix themselves when you don’t have the political class, and an entire political party, selling favors with other people’s money.

BTW, for the people all confused by why suddenly after the democrats lost the election things like employment, consumer confidence, and future economic outlook are off the charts in positive territory, it is things like this that are driving that. People want less intrusive and abusive government, and most of us definitely want government out of the business of picking winners and losers.

That’s the claim he makes <a href=’http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/stephen-hawking-world-government-stop-technology-destroy-humankind-th-a7618021.html” target=”_new”>in this article. Meh, globalists are getting desperate and even people that are supposed to be intelligent are now talking out of their asses. I find it not just naive but ridiculous to put faith in an entity that couldn’t do the job even at the micro level of states. What, incompetent credentialed bureaucrats like the ones running the EU or the UN will suddenly discover the secret to doing things right? Talk about being delusional. Shit, if the tools that will be running the global government don’t kill us outright themselves, they will use this tech to enslave us. Maybe Hawking thinks that is preferable to his imagined alternative, but I don’t.

Tech won’t doom humanity. Idiots thinking that only they are qualified and know what is best in charge of tech is what will doom humanity, and you are far more likely to get that with a global government than you are without. You want a bunch of social engineering idiots that think their will can bend the laws of nature, humanity, and physics to be in charge? Shit, Obama had the intelligence people spying on everyone, including his personal and political enemies. The Eu is a bunch of unaccountable douchebags that have been screwing over the people of Europe while they live a high life. And the UN, well that is one of the world’s biggest criminal organizations ever. Why the fuck would anyone trust an even larger and more intrusive government to do anything but make things worse for us?

I guess this “cri de coeure” by Hawking is just another desperate attempt at replacing the panic inducing shit other pro-globalization types push, like AGW, to sell their shit sandwich. The globalists are freaking out that their dream is dying, but I see it as a great thing that it is. Credentialed tools should not be calling the shot based on the horrible performance they have produced so far. That’s the real threat to humanity.

Today, on September 11, 2016, 15 years after the worst attack on US soil, while my thoughts are with those that lost their lives and those that loved their loved ones, both on that day and in the struggle after, I want to actually deal with something I see coming that bears ill for all of us: the PC movement’s attack on freedom in general, and internet freedom in particular. Now I am sure most good people will say that there should be nothing wrong with being polite and respectful to others, especially when hiding behind the anonymity provided by the internet, and that anyone unable to do so or resisting that effort must be bad or have ill intent, but whenever I hear the PC movement run their mouths about the ills of a free internet (or opposition of the PC movement in general) all I hear or see is exactly this: those in power will silence the opposition and their political enemies.

The world is heading towards dark times as Western values are being abandoned by the most corrupt and least capable political class ever (both oh, do they think they are awesome shit). The political elite calls the masses stupid or evil because they will not let the globalists do what they want. Especially since what the globalists are doing is horrible for the common people. Oh sure, they tell us that they are doing this to help the less well off and fight injustice, but these people give absolute proof to the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Don’t take my words for this. Look at what the world looks like after 8 years of the people that tell us anyone that doesn’t share their social and ideological values and ideas of social justice being provided by them, actually is today. In short, things are worse, and it is by design. More instability, the rich got more powerful and richer – and it is no coincidence ,that the biggest promoters of social justice also are the ones that have profited the most from the misery it has caused – and the rest of us are robbed of more of our freedoms and wealth.

Unlike the old fascists and communists that actually killed of their =political enemies, the new crop of collectivists now content themselves with destroying the lives and well being of those that dare stand up against the disservice they are doing us all. I leave you with one of the most telling quotes I have ever read:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

President Barack Obama called for expanding Social Security on Wednesday, prompting progressive groups to declare victory after they tangled with him over a plan to save costs in the entitlement program three years ago.

After all, I was going to say I predict, but that requires I have a chance to be wrong about something I am gonna say, so I am just going to say what these morons will make as the go-to argument for taking this idiotic step: “you can just pick the pockets of the productive and rich some more, can’t you?”. And as I point out:

“And not only do we need to strengthen its long-term health, it’s time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they’ve earned,” Obama said in an economic call to arms in Elkhart, Indiana. “We could start paying for it by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more.”

Yeah, sure, “a little bit more”. That will do it. The facts be damned. This boondoggle is already running a massive deficit, and the truth is that even that number is bullshit, because that substantial deficit is made smaller by an accounting trick that ignores the massive $10 trillion discrepancy caused by government borrowing money from SS to fund other social spending over a couple of decasdes, and replacing it with worthless IOUs that will basically have to be paid off by US tax payers.

It will take a fucking ton more than picking the pockets of the rich to overcome the existing problem, let alone finding enough money to allow the system to pay up even more like the “free shit” democrat voting block likes and wants. But Obama knows he can say this shit, and heck, even push it through a spineless congress, and never have to be held accountable for it. Someone else can be blamed and hated when the whole thing collapses, and I bet Obama will say that things were doing just great – and get the DNC parrots in the LSM to go along with that whopper of a lie – when he decided to nail yet another stake into that vampire.

This is the shit that passes for great political action these days. We truly deserve the end to this once great country. How far we have fallen.

If they stole every penny from anyone making over $100K a year, the collectivist government Hillary & Bernie promise wouldn’t be able to operate for more than a year anyway. Who would they steal money from after they robbed the productive? And the sad thing is that Hillary at least knows this. Bernie is a fucking loser and doesn’t care. It is about revenge for the fact that he couldn’t hold a real job or bag a real women. That is why, in practice, I firmly believe that the left wouldn’t do this (maybe Bernie would). So why this charade then?

Here is a question to ask Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: What is the best tax rate to impose on high-income earners to ensure there is enough government revenue to pay for your trillion-dollar promises to voters?

Perhaps they think it is 83%, a rate that economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saezhypothesized in 2014 in a widely circulated paper. Or maybe it is 90%, which Sen. Sanders told CNBC last May was not out of the question. “Our job is not to think small,” Mr. Sanders elaborated in the Huffington Post a month later. “It is to think big.”

Progressives have often reminded us that the U.S. had such rates in the past. From 1936 to 1980, the highest federal income-tax rate was never below 70%, and the top rate exceeded 90% from 1951 to 1963. Under Ronald Reagan, the top federal rate declined to 28% by 1988 and has never reached 40% since.

The discussion of these rates can easily create the impression that the federal government collected far more money from “the rich” before the Reagan administration. And it can also leave another impression: There would be no downside to raising rates to 1950s levels, given that decade’s prosperity.

Neither impression would be correct. The effective tax rates actually paid by the highest income earners during the 1950s and early ’60s were far lower than the highest marginal rates. Few taxpayers reached the top brackets, the code was rife with loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at much lower rates.

And when you read between the lines, that last paragraph, it becomes obvious why the left still thinks this absolutely idiotic idea has merit. Insane tax rates provide the political left with the greatest opportunity for graft. In the name of “social engineering” they would flood that system with loopholes to favor their preferred constituencies: lobbyists, mega crops, the ultra rich, and the people that vote for a living. If we went back to the tax rates of the 50s, it would come with a trough feeding frenzy by the lawmakers pushing this crap on the people, as one special interest after another lines up to buy their own bennies.

The only people really screwed would be the middle class. The left can’t operate their totalitarian command driven economy nanny state unless they get rid of the middle class, anyway. History shows us that you always end up with a 2 class system: the aristocracy in charge, and the serfs bearing the brunt of the horrible policies they are made to live under.

Nostalgia aside for a world that never existed, few people paid the top tax rates of the 1950s and early 1960s…

Meh, the political left doesn’t pine for any of that. They spout it to hide their real intention: to rob taxpayers fucking blind by making everyone line up to buy favors from them. In short, they think this move will enhance their ability to pick the winners and the losers even more while in the process lining their pockets. gangsters the lot of them.

It is not as if we need more proof that liberals are willing to sacrifice anyone else’s things in the name of compliance, but I just couldn’t pass on this story:

A popular gifted-student program at a New York City elementary school is getting the ax after school officials decided it lacked diversity.

PS 139 Principal Mary McDonald told parents in a letter Jan. 24 that Students of Academic Rigor, or SOAR, would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners, the New York Daily Newsreported.

At least one parent described SOAR as largely white, while others disagreed, the report said.

One mother conceded the program did have a lot of white students, but worried gifted students now won’t be challenged enough.

Think that through. That’s “Social Justice” in a nutshell. It’s not a bad decision: its’ the only option that’s left for people that are only concerned with making the world a “fair” place. These collectivist systems can’t change reality to make, in this case, ungifted students more gifted, so the only recourse is to take away the opportunity from the gifted. Who cares about the cost. Fairnes uber alles!

In a follow-up letter sent to parents Monday, Miss McDonald wrote: “At PS 193, we believe that all children can learn and achieve high standards. We also know that we want all children at PS 193 to have equal access to high quality, challenging curriculum, and to have ample opportunities to master complex material and build academic and personal self-confidence. We also want our classes to reflect the diversity of our community. We believe we can have both: classrooms characterized by rigor and diversity.”

Hah! Improve things by denying the gifted a chance to really cultivate and grow their gift. mediority for all is now the new high standards. As the old saying goes: shared misery is the natural state of all collectivist systems, because it is the only thing that the powers that be can deliver consistently. At least, statistically speaking, the people most likely negatively impacted by this insane decision, are other collectivists. That’s based on NYC demographics.